World War III

You said "Wars start where the last war was left unresolved"..but this leaves us with lots of possibilities.
After the second world war, europe was cut like cheese cake in two pieces by the superpowers in Yalta.
It left eastern europe integrated by force into the soviet empire, and the other half into the US empire, where it still is, because american money
buys everything : the marshall plan got europe back on its feet, but now western europe included eastern europe into its womb, and countries like
poland and america receive a lot of american money. so now we can say all of europe is in the western womb. The last communists were wiped out in the
seventies, with the false flag communist attacks in germany, italy and so on...the older ones among you know better. Soon a new atlantic trade treaty
will be signed, allowing full free trade inside the 'western world'. Europe is firmly 'anchored' to America. Keeping the populations afraid with
so called muslim terrorist attacks (false flag too) helps to dominate the populations better, as you can deploy police, surveillance, and so on. No
problem anymore.
But the two great empires are still pulling ropes ..the us empire is 'containing' the ancient soviet, now russian empire in an 'energy corset' :
this is called 'containment', and a well known proven fact that was analyzed and documented. After the west, the south and the east of the russian
empire must be contained too..just think of some concrete implications of that ...just look at the world map...and think of energy.
But wars are not fought openly..they are transfered, privatized to terrorists, drones and 'whore' countries, also receving money, under US vigilance
: look at the map with all the american military bases around the world.
BUT BUT BUT...the US can pay as long as the dollar remains the world currency. An that is at stake : if the dollar falls...the rest falls likes
dominos..and at last they can start using their sophisticated military machinery which is so heavy on the budget..sure american tax payers cant pays
for all that is being built and all the bribes that are paid all over the world. And if you look at the dollar, you must look at the banks.
And nobody knows what the russian empire is up to..just defending its 'doors' and energy 'taps', or also willing to open up new ones? who are
their 'anchored' allies? questions questions..
And Asia? poor Asia....all are being turned against one another.like a bone thrown among dogs.....just divide to reign...that is what the old british
empire used to do..and the method always works. In India and Pakistan it is particularly easy, as it is easy in the whole middle east, money
helps..ask the Bushes.
And India? India is not fine. Stuck in between dangerous 'whore' Pakistan, who is allowing the killing drones against its own population because it
is receiving money from america, at the same time helping the talibans and exterminating shiites and christians...and on the other side of India,
there is , China, occupying Tibet, whose leader is in India, containing India from the north. India is also 'contained'. India will just shut its
mouth and do whatever it is asked to do..unless it has been thinking about things...because Indians are no less smart than any other country..China is
their 'secret' friend, and China is also the 'secret friend' of Russia...someone know? If I were Indian, I would have thought about that..cant
have ennemies on two fronts, can you? Ask Hitler.
No, even ATS (itself a government supervised website) does not know...someone tell me. Where does the indian energy come from? that is where it will
make good friends. But I dont know.
Just rely on clear factual and most of all financial and economical needs...that is the only truth.

China is alot smarter than to involve itself in starting a world war imo, India is far too poor too and Burma would just be a fly to the imperial
swatter. I hope that any country with the means to use nuclear weapons understands the inconvenience of waking up to smell the nuclear fallout
stained dead rose buds.

Why 2014? Why not 2013? Every year on here someone predicts WWIII for the next year. I will go ahead and say no. No WWIII this year OR next year.

Originally posted by JoeP2247
World War III

It will most probably start in 2014
The death toll will be at least 10 times greater than World War II (600,000,000+)
It will be fought mainly in the China-Burma-India theater.
It will likely end in a nuclear exchange.

This is not a psychic prediction ( I have no abilities in that regard) . It is our historical pattern as a society though - and here is why I make
these specific predictions.

The median time interval between a financial disaster and a major war is 6 years. It can be as short as 4 years (like the Panic of 1857 to American
Civil War in 1861) or as long as 7 years (like the panic of 1907 led to the First World War in 1914). The pattern is always the same though - a
financial debacle leads to war and it seems to take about 6 years for this to happen. I would speculate this time interval is related to how long it
takes for the negative financial situation to fully filter down to society and erupt. I also observe that the monetary gains generated by the act of
war ends the financial disaster most of the time. This pattern has been true for at least the past three hundred years of western history.

With each major war technology develops that increase our killing power by factors of about 10. For example, the introduction of the rifled musket in
the 1850’s increased KIA to over 800,000 in the American Civil war - Machine guns led to 9,000,000 deaths in World War One - advances in air power
killed at least 60 million people in World War II (I personally think it was over 80 million) - and so on.

Wars start where the last war was left unresolved. For example, World War Two was an almost inevitable product of the Versailles Treaty after the
First World War. The theater of World War Two left most up in the air was the China-Burma-India theater which left many issues moldering.

Wars escalate to the extreme of the weaponry available to the parties. If one side is going to lose and the only weapon they have that might"
escalate" to the point of winning is a nuclear weapon it will be eventually used. This is very much a Clausewitz theory of war and the United States
and most modern powers do use Clausewitz as a model theorist. You could read “On War” - it is still required reading in military schools.

Mark Twain once said (paraphrasing) that if history doesn’t repeat itself, it sure rhymes.

I am always dubious when people start quoting their opinions as facts using pseudo statistics.

For instance, what he is really talking about are probabilities, not certainties. So what makes your scenario more probable than; let's say, Iran? or
Korea? or a flare up of Russian military projection (i.e Naval battle group in the persian gulf or George Friedmans compilation of data points in the
book "The next 100 Years", by the way, he is paid a great deal of money to identify trends with data and to make forecasts based upon
probabilities).

My point is, that while your opinion is interesting, it is in no means compelling as a factual certainty. So, research some more, develop a median
time frame (if the data is not normal) and the variance between your data points. Post that data here so others can see it. You could of course also
do a correlation analysis to see if there is a relationship and then a regression analysis to define what that relationship is. This analysis would
give you the confidence and probability bands.

Well I am 100% sure that yes we are heading for World Wat again, I do think your area is wrong that you say it will start in however, because I know
that like WW1 & WW2 that WW3 is soon to start in Europe again, why? well because Europe countries are all again in massive dept, unemployment is
higher in europe than anywhere else, crime is high, people are poor, rich are getting richer, groups like the one is Germany that started war are
getting stronger by the day, we in UK France, Sweden are also seeing more dangers within from Muslim fanatics, inflation is higher than any other time
as it was before WW2, we are seeing Russia once again getting big with penetration of Europe's are space, subs in Europes vital shipping lanes like
the Med, Gulf, Norway, North Sea, America putting missiles towards Russia, Russia & Iran & Korea putting missiles pointed towards our sea lanes in
Asia, yes WW3 is soon, and it is not going to be a good ride for most of us.

Those are some really good perspectives about how the casualties get bigger but the planet stays the same.

About the escalation to nuclear weapons though. Atom bombs, like nukes, are a WW2 escalation, so by the idea that everything gets more interesting,
the last weapon to win won't be a DEW like that.

Which opens up to the question of what device will be used this time? Personally I think it will be something resembling the things aliens get.

Say for a minute that intergalactic bartering does happen, and that in a war an earthling leader will want anything to keep the flag. In that case at
a point in the battle the intergalactic barterers appear, through their own volition or at the cause of the summoning earthling, and a deal is struck
of an exchange in technology for the promise of the political type gaining a number of followers, or else he loses his position and life as a
leader.

It seems deals like this happen on a regular basis; it's called business. But what would be the supra-atomic war-winning device be?

I don't think this bargaining process would happen in USA at this rate. The cell phone towers are indicative of all the sheep the local controlship
could desire.

War finalizing devices, if there was an electronic device that could blast micro black holes at people to cause a chain reaction in molecular
connections to reduce a body into a pile of minerals on the ground... no surprisingly that wouldn't be of the level of technology a national leader
would be entrusted to carry; I'm afraid the levels of secrecy go way way up above Presidents which are more for ground wars. You'd have to have an
egomaniac scientist world leader, maybe an antichrist Mabus type, to accomplish that angle.

A neurological blast device would make more sense. A seizure weapon, that causes people to pass out, or paralysis...actually what they have is
weapons that can be at a frequency strong enough to induce amnesia, probably worse if their enforcement forces get so morally degraded. Speaking of
which, covert groups use that stuff now. So that could be it. Personally I hate the bio-field tracking programs and the SSSS agendas. No-touch
state sponsored terrorism.

Some spelling a punctuation errors but overall a compelling synopsis of how a WWIII may eventuate.

I'd only add that there needs to be a catalyst to the war (a gunpowder keg in the engine room of a galley; an heir to a throne assassinated; false
flag ship torpedoings etc...). The CIA, too, have already forecast a war in the region cited by 2025. The reasoning being water shortage /
resources.

China and India aren't where high tensions lie; that would be India and Pakistan. China and India may not like each other, but that dislike is
nowhere near the hatred between India and Pakistan.

Regardless, nuclear war is to be avoided by all countries at all costs. Nukes are a deterrent; they ensure M.A.D. and even the playing the field.
Nuclear countries don't have to nuke other countries, if they detonate 100 nukes within their own borders almost every life form on earth will be
wiped out.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
Not sure why the world would be involved in the China-Burma-India theater, but yes tensions in that area are very high and will likely boil over
soon.

However, I seriously doubt we will see nuclear war.

I read one of those predictions that China would go to war with Russia - maybe it was one of Nostrodamus's predictions - he had something called
RAYPOZ. I always wondered whether that could have been Gazprom.

What you speak of shouldn't be referred to as a world war, if nukes are used, you may as well call it world anniliation. If any 1 country involved
used a nuke that would not end things as stated, but simply cause a chain reaction of countries nuking each other until the radiation/earth in the
atmosphere is so great that anyone not directly killed by the bombs themselves will surely die off. I have to agree with the poster above who said
there will not be nukes used again in a world war, for the same reason we never officially went to war with Russia, mutual guaranteed destruction, or
in this case destruction of the planet's habitibility by humans. Another world war is certainly possible, but I doubt it will happen in my lifetime
and I'm sure if it does happen no one is goin to start firing off nukes at each other, for their own sakes.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.